Is it really fair to equate "liberal" and "progressive"?

The encyclical certainly isn't 'reactionary', and it doesn't defend the status quo. It is calling for a new direction, it is condemning business as it has been done in recent years, it calls for the establishment of food and water as human rights, it calls for space to be made in the economy for production without profit as the primary goal - the list of 'progressive' ideas could go on for some time.

And what about foreign policy? It isn't the topic of CV, but few world leaders have taken a more 'progressive' stance on war and peace than the popes of the 20th/21st centuries.

Finally, if no policy recommendations or concrete ideas emerge from CV, then it would have been a pointless endeavor. I do not believe these encyclicals are written to make some people feel good about their positions and make others squirm. They are written to instruct and to inspire us at whatever level we can exert influence, from the political to the grassroots. I do agree, however, that trying to force fit these ideas into a "Left" OR "Right" paradigm would not do them justice.

The Pope isn't simply articulating the usual list of proscriptions against the "bad guys" that American Catholics neocons hate. His vision transcends that. If you really read the entire encyclical, it is a discussion of what is necessary to reconstitute authentic humanity in authentic societies and cultures (based on analogies to the Trinity). He sets forth Catholic principles, which are the only ones sufficient to ensure this (#16-18, 54-57). When he discusses a reform of the UN (#67) and other international agencies, the principles by which their reform would be deemed satisfactory are those of Catholicism. The Holy Father gets even more specific in section 31, where he says that the Church's "social doctrine" exercises an "interdisciplinary dimension," which reunites the discrete disciplines of the so-called "secular" world. Since authentic humanity is supposed to strive for unity, it must also go beyond mere functional disciplines and the only entity that can ensure this is the Catholic Church.

You should also note that the Pope references Dominus Iesus and the Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life (2004), both of which he authored as prefect of the CDF (#55), where he says specificially that all religions "are not equal." In the Doctrinal Note it is stated that: ""It is insufficient and reductive to think that the commitment of Catholics in society can be limited to a simple transformation of structures, because if at the basic level there is no culture capable of receiving, justifying and putting into practice positions deriving from faith and morals, the changes will always rest on a weak foundation" (#7).

This encyclical goes way beyond "social" questions or the easy categorizations I've seen in commentaries. It actually calls for a reinstatement of Christendom.

I suspect it doesn't really matter (politically) what the document actually says; its influence will be determined by those whose explanation of it becomes accepted. We have seen before that interpretations of Church documents don't have to be accurate, they only have to be plausible to have the desired affect of getting ones adherents to believe that their political inclinations are, if not specifically supported by the Church, at least in line with her teachings.

The misperception that the Right is right on the life issues and wrong on the social ones while the Left is right on the social issues and wrong on the life issues still stands. More significantly, the misperception that these categories are of equal weight stands as well.

I don't understand this division, but I know it is real.

As to the bolded part, is this true all of the time? Perhaps some qualifiers are in order there. I feel like a lot of Catholics on the right do dissent from the social justice issues.

In other words, there are things that the politically-liberal Catholics don't want to hear, and things that politically-conservative Catholics don't want to hear.

Misreading = anything that disagrees with Deal Hudson's misreading.

Pope Benedict is a theological conservative, but to try to put him in the camp of being A Republican Catholic or Democratic Catholic is silly. I would bet that he would have plenty of disagreement with "Obama Catholics" to say the least, but he is not George W Bush's "boy" either.

Joe,
It's not entirely accurate to equate progressives and liberals, but it usually fits.

Deal,
I keep saying I'm waiting to comment on this encyclical until I actually read it, since I find the commentary on almost every "social" encyclical has completely missed the mark when I actually read the encyclicals.

That said, I would contend that you're leaving out a fourth misinterpretation. Just as both the "progressives" and the RadTrads advocate a "hermeneutic of rupture", there are two equal and opposite errors of social encyclicals: those that see them as promoting socialism (which they do not) and see that as a good thing, and those which see them as promoting socialism (which they do not) and see that as a bad thing.

To be truly "orthodox" is to be progressive.

To be truly progressive is to advance in holiness -- as Edith Stein teaches us, in: Finite and Eternal Being.

A few points:

First, the encyclical connects love and truth in a compelling way: we have all felt force of love and we know that it is the deep truth about our natures, for it
This is obviously not a move in political analysis.

Second, while Benedict does contrast duty with right, that contrast is primarily a useful heuristic and not the real heart of the document. This is because neither duty nor right nor even their reciprocal relation can exhaust the notion of love. Love acts out of its own inner (non-necessary) logic. So, neither is this a move in political analysis.

Third, love, through it own logic - or better, its own inner life - "compels" respect for all. It keeps us from pulling the trigger on an innocent. It urges us to give drink to the thirsty. But it does not, by itself, provide a simple map onto political arrangement. This is because its nature is a "going outward" not a canny analysis or science. Those latter have their own rules but they are by their very limitations naturally ordered to serve us in loving.

Finally, there is all the difference in the world between,our action or inaction in:
1. authorizing aggression against the innocent and
2. failing to relieve the suffering of the innocent.
This is why there is evident and reasonable priority to the obvious life issues over the somewhat more remote (in virtue of the unpredictabillity of action at a distance - geography or time) actions in politics both domestic and foreign.

Hermeneutic of Discontinuity?
Protestant interpretations of Scripture are often begun under a self-imposed ignorance of Christian tradition. As a result, they produce novelties of doctrine which are entirely defensible as interpretations of Scripture, but are implausible anachronisms and novelties when examined in historical context.

Early interpretations of Caritas in Veritate suffer, I fear, from the same problem, only more so.

The Benefits of Many Voices, More Data
For here we have a shorter work than Scripture. There is necessarily less data with which to work. And it is issued by a single man -- not that I am denying either the guidance of the Holy Spirit or the contributions of others who may have assisted his scholarship, but the document has a voice of authorship which is the Pope's.

I found in school that hearing the same topic explained by several different people in slightly differing ways allowed me to "triangulate" in on a concrete understanding of that topic...or at least to find an explanation which made the most sense to me. We don't have a multi-voiced explanation, here.

And repetition helps also, and the passing of time. How much time have we had with this document thus far? How many re-readings, before opining on it?

Rinse, Repeat
I fear that many are rushing to have an instantaneous understanding of Caritas in Veritate when it should be allowed to simmer, or percolate at a low boil of periodic re-readings. I fear that many are rushing to soundbite it when it is intended to be understood as being "all of a piece," articulating a vision of Christendom.

And I fear that because words and phrasing and timing and nuance can be viewed differently by different readers, the only person who could learn the "framer's intent" of Caritas in Veritate using a quick, isolated exegesis would be...the pontiff himself! All others using this method will read too much of their own linguistics into it, for it lacks an important benefit we have in Scripture gives us; namely, the voices of several different authors trying to articulate the same thing. (For in reconciling all their explanations, we are able to discard incompatible interpretations, as when understanding "works of faith" through the different "voices" of James and Paul).

But most of all I fear it is taken out of context of relevant prior teachings, or with the shyest little nods to prior teachings.

Context
The worst offenders will read it by itself and extract meaning, a sort of Sola Encyclica instead of Sola Scriptura. This will naturally produce several contradictory meanings, as the Sola approach does with Scripture.

Those who come closer to the truth will read it in the context of a few quotes from Centesimus Annus, Quadragesimo Anno, Rerum Novarum, and the like...but only their very favorite quotes.

Those who come closest will be those who simmered in those earlier encyclicals for long months of study, and who are willing to do the same for this one, and who furthermore view all of them through a lens which understands them to be part of an organic process of growth, or what the Venerable John Henry Newman called natural and valid development of doctrine.

Natural Development
For no man in his lifetime can expect a 2,000 year old tree to suddenly double in size over the course of a hundred years, or put out a branch which is twice the size of all previous branches, or with an entirely different texture of bark, or leaves of a different shape. If we understand what we see here to be a new bud, perhaps a new Y-shaped divergence on a slender twig standing at the end of a branch which is itself a growing-out from a larger branch, then we will have a better sense of perspective.

And if we furthermore observe that newly-forming branches on a tree often look a fair bit like branches that developed years earlier, then we will see what another commenter mentioned...a view that would look quite a bit like Christendom. As a younger branch looks like an older one.

Rumination, Elimination, Germination
I don't know how best to view Caritas in Veritate. I will know in fifty years, perhaps. I can draw some conclusions earlier, but others should wait.

Some interpretations or conclusions can, I think, be eliminated out-of-hand because, while they might be entirely consonant with the words of this one encyclical, would require an interpretation of those words which would reverse earlier teachings. Those who see a mandate for further centralization and delegation of an already too-centralized and too-delegated system of almsgiving-by-taxation are incorrect; such a view would amputate Subsidiarity and Personal Responsibility from the Social Doctrine pretty soundly. Other views could be eliminated through a similar process.

But in the end, we'll know the shape of the flower only after it has opened, the shape of the branch after a few more seasons.

Prior to that, everyone has a right to speculate, and those will do best who remember the context of history. But even such speculations will fall less under the heading of "dogma," and more under the heading of "pious opinion."

RC, you consistently have some of the most insightful and measured commentary on this blog. Not trying to puff you up or anything, but I wanted to let you know I appreciate it, and I do mean that sincerely.

Do you ever actually write for IC or elsewhere? (you may be a well-known contributor and I don't even know it-- I am only here sporadically)

If nothing else, thanks for the input, and may God bless you.

Thanks, friend. I worked on that one a while (and now I notice that it still had two typos in it, doggone it!) and am glad to hear you thought well of it.

No, I'm not a "known" contributor, I just pop in and piggyback on other people's conversations! I expect that regular contributors have to do things like meeting deadlines and coming up with their own topics instead of reacting to others': Under similar obligations, I might not fare half so well.

Anyhow, thanks for the kind words. Now I'd better follow C.S.Lewis's advice and be careful "not to think about them!"

"Pope Benedict is a theological conservative,..."

No. He's theologically orthodox. "Conservative" is a political label, as is "progressive." Theologically, one is either orthodox or unorthodox, faithful or unfaithful.

I was blessed as I read your post and found it fed me immensely. Thank you SO much for your words.

Blessings to you sir!

First, I've not finished the encyclical just yet ... so pardon my dust! But as others as stated, in some ways many conservatives do align with the pope's intentions regarding the preferred strategies used to attack social injustice (i.e. poverty). We'd rather see success through voluntary contributions (in time, talents and treasures) by individuals and organizations rather than the impersonal, mandatory, over-involvemnet of our government to lobby taxation and laws. The prior involves acts of more christian love. As for various natural laws (not just social injustice), like the right to life ... it trumps any right to choose.

"Pro-lifers recognize the priority of the life issues but do not dissent from social-justice issues."


Since when? I thought we had pro-lifers on this very blog who argued for torture. Does that mean that they aren't pro-life or I misread them?

I've got to agree, that was a poor characterization of "social justice Catholics" and "pro-lifers". There are 4 categories, not two, and two of them are legitimate and faithful to the Church. Of Catholics who see the world and politics through the lens of social justice, there are (1) faithful Catholics who understand and respect the sanctity of life and (2) dissenters who reject or ignore the Church's teaching on life issues and don't care about saving unborn lives. Of the Catholics who take a primarily "life issues" or "pro-life" perspective, there are (3) faithful Catholics who understand and respect the duty to be stewards of nature and society, and (4) dissenters who reject out-of-hand any inconvenience for the sake of the needy or the environment. Just because Deal seems to have more experience of groups 2 and 3, does not mean the others don't exist in significant numbers. Incidentally, I think the political landscape is dotted with artifically high levels of type 2 and 4.